hopefulscribbler2014

Literary_tourist, so long as you have great English language credentials (if applicable) and you apply to schools that routinely provide equal fundng to international students, I don't think you'll have a problem. That said, it is worth checking what the funding app situation is in each of your programs. Funding at some schools is automatic and guaranteed if you are accepted, some require a separate application and in those cases there may be special criteria. Oh, and the California state schools are notoriously difficult for internationals seeking funding. Sadly, many of them can't offer foreigners a cent.

Interesting, thanks for the advice. I have a prof who I don't yet plan on asking to write me a letter of rec (mainly because he can only comment on my work in a field that isn't as relevant) but I asked him if he knew a person I'd identified as a potential supervisor - just by chance I noticed he'd cameoed at a lecture this person had run. I was only curious about what this potential supervisor was like in person. Turns out this prof who I have a good relationship with happens to be very close to this person (I believe "best friend in the whole world!" was the answer to my question) and offered to mention me / put me in personal contact. I guess it's just a nice thing that, whatever happens come app season, may help me know more about the program. I have a real thing about fairness and people being successful on their own merits (probs because I'm from the kind of background/have typically had the kind of connections that are liable to get you kept OUT of stuff rather than welcomed into it!) but from what you guys have said I don't need to feel like I'm gaming the system or anything.

So, we all know academia is a small world and profs are friends who like to talk! How do you guys feel about applicants using the connections they might have? No grad school's going to admit someone if they don't have the credentials (unless maybe many many dollars are involved!) but does it happen that adcomms are swayed by personal relationships? Anyone out there who asked a prof to have a word in someone's ear? Did you get in and if so, how'd you feel about it?

Just to throw in my two cents: I went to grad school at UVa, a state school that gets a LOT of funding from private donors / alumni. So there's that, too. Aside from good funding packages for the English grads, there seemed to be a decent amount of paid opportunities floating around over the summer and during term time, etc. Way more money in that grad world than the one I'm in now. Oh and definitely calibre of the program over public/private. I know for certain UVa is no breeze to get into!

This wiki is an interesting source of info on the CRWR job market. http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/CreativeWriting_2013 I'm not interested in the CRWR PhD - they're few and far between and it'd feel like overkill to me. I would like to give myself a plan B with the Lit PhD, becuase nobody is getting an CRWR TT job without a couple of decent books.

Hi Kayrabbit, Most of the reasons are personal rather than practical. I won a fellowship to do my MA, just as I was finishing up my BA in the UK. I had intended to take a little break from university before I applied to PhD programs (I'd just moved house) but the opportunity seemed amazing. So... I applied for the fellowship and nothing else, thinking I probably wouldn't get it. That complicated things and brought me back to America (I'd spent a year in an exchange program at UPenn) for two years. Whilst at UVa, which happens to have an exceptional MFA program, I began to think much harder about my creative writing as a potential career path; aside from working alone and attending the odd workshop, I'd been reluctant to think about creative writing in a professional context because it seemed so unbelievably difficult, impossible almost. Working with CRWR faculty at UVa changed that. I began to think I could carve a life for myself doing what I love, hence the MFA application. I wasn't torn at the time of making it, although I always believed I would complete what I started at UVa in another graduate literature program. Lit profs will almost always advise against revealing your CRWR ambitions and CRWR profs will probably really hate the idea of someone who they think should be dedicating themselves to the craft of fiction or poetry, "lowering themselves" to become a literary scholar. As one CRWR prof once said to me rather snottily, "why in the hell would you just want to talk about something if you can MAKE what everyone wants to talk about?" It's hilarious to me (and on some days a little stressful ) that each course of study seems to feel itself slightly superior to the other. The way I see it, writers generally want people to engage with their work, so they shouldn't diss critics, and (literary) critics wouldn't have a job if artists didn't produce. The relationship can be symbiotic, which is something I'd like to explore informally as my career progresses. I've always felt an understanding of theory and a critical eye helps me think about and manipulate craft, and that craft can help me think about theory and criticism in really interesting ways. It can get confusing, sure, but it takes time to work that kind of stuff out properly. Oh, and you're right about the difference between the programs: you simply can't be an academic without a PhD (unless you're some kind of savant) but it's also damned difficult to make it as a professional writer without access to a supportive creative community and funded time to write / develop your craft, both of which the MFA provides. If I think about where I'd be in my writing now without the MFA, well, it'd put me back years in so many ways. At the risk of getting kicked off the forum I'm a writer first, academic second. I love scholarship but I could probably live the rest of my life never gaining a PhD (if worst comes to worst ), but never writing creatively again or teaching it again would kill me. Part of the reason I wish to apply for the PhD, then, is that I feel I have a lot more to learn. A lot more that could underpin my creative work. I'm also aware that CRWR tenure track jobs are much more competitive than any Lit job out there, and that's where I'd like to head depending on whether or not I have any creative success - I love teaching literature, love, love, love it, but teaching CRWR is soooo great, and personally I find it a much greater challenge (communicating craft in a way that doesn't kill creativity is HARD). Increasingly it is in the expectation that (in addition to numerous literary creative publications - once again, way harder to achieve than scholarly ones), a Lit PhD is highly desirable. The MFA is still the terminal degree in my field but that's changing... All hiring departments respect flexibility (breadth as well as depth of knowlege and teaching capability) so it makes sense that schools where CRWR is housed within English departments would like candidates who can muck in with literature if needs must. I also want flexibility in my career. I don't want to be bored! I don't want to give up anything that excites me and makes me happy!

Hi! Just wondering if there's anyone else out there applying to or accepted to PhD lit programs with an MFA. Interested in your reasoning (love of field - obvs, job market, etc.) and your concerns. One of mine is that it took me a little while after my MA to stop reading like a critic and to begin reading like a writer; my MFA sort of bashed that into me and it's been really helpful for my fiction. But now I'm taking a grad course in the English dept and I've realised the writer's perspective is doing all kinds of weird things to my critic-brain! It's a bit confusing. Thoughts?

As with all things, teaching in the MA has its pros and cons. FWW, I did teach during my MA and loved it - so there's my bias - but here's what I think in general: Pros: It's great experience, and at the very least it'll help you bypass some of that stage-fright and teaching persona stuff when you get to your PhD program. If you're able to teach in your field, it'll help you strengthen your knowledge of it. It can give you something tangible to discuss in your SOP, particularly if you're applying to programs that make special mention of the importance of teaching on their websites. Cons: Teaching, as opposed to grading, requires an emotional investment, not to mention an substantial investment of time. The pace of grad school is radically different from that of undergrad and your duties as a student will no doubt be overwhelming at first. Add to that the responsibility of your own students and it can be very tough. At least if you go straight to a PhD, you generally get some time to settle in before you start teaching, with the MA it won't be that way. You'll have to hit the ground running, juggling a lot in terms of workload and switching between two mindsets - the grad student and the teacher. It's hard for even experienced teachers to manage the balance between their own work and their duties as educators, so that's something to consider. Teaching can also be really distracting - both in terms of the pull it has on you emotionally, and in terms of its use as a procrastination exercise. This is a danger for MAs especially, because the chances are they haven't quite settled on a specialism yet. If you're casting about for some solid ground, it's easy to mistake teaching for that / put all your energy into teaching because it feels like something clear you can achieve at. It can be hard to put your studies and your future before than of your students. Your profs are right about the fact you'll be retrained, and I don't think adcoms expect to see teaching experience from an MA. It doesn't seem to be the norm for departments to fund MAs via TA or graderships. Personally, unless you have a great love of teaching, I would go the grader route and use the MA to really concentrate on your own work with the least amount of distraction / pressure. After all, the writing sample and fit as determined by your SOP are the things that'll get you in to a great program.

Just FYI, if anyone's considering grad school in the UK: you can't register for a PhD (or DPhil in the case of Oxbridge) straight from a BA. You need a masters to apply to a research degree. I think that means you'd need an MA or MSt in order to apply to be a probationary research student, from which you would then advance to candidacy (MLitt or DPhil). There are also fewer opportunities to teach because in general the UK system doesn't normally allow for TAs, certainly not like the U.S. system (and there are no mandatory comp programs at UK schools to give us jobs) - undergrads are mostly taught by faculty. I've been advised that I could be competitive on the U.S. job market if I chose to apply and do my PhD at a top tier (Russell Group) university at home, but that's because I have lots of experience in the U.S. system. Mixing it up doesn't hurt necessarily but you'd really have to take into consideration the different approaches to job placement in the U.S. and the UK. If you want to study abroad for a while - try out a different system - why not do an MA in the UK, rather than the PhD? It's less of a commitment, and it can help you work out your focus for PhD applications if you really want to end up on the market in the U.S. I really think the move from U.S. undergrad to UK graduate school is a complicated one... The American and UK systems don't align easily, but it can be a lot of fun to see how another country does it! Funding for home students is bad enough in the UK; for internationals it really is practically impossible without being a complete superstar (and who knows what one of those looks like) or getting a Fulbright, etc. Sad situation, and one of the reasons it's unlikely I'll be applying to programs at home.

ghijklmn, thanks. I don't suppose you'd be willing to share where you were accepted? I hope that's not rude, it's just the "fully formed" thing concerns me a bit as an applicant who'll have a couple of grad degrees. I worry it'll put programs off, although I hope to make my SOP show I'm open-minded and interested in a number of things within my broader field. I had felt UPenn would be my no.1 but it's neck and neck with Stanford and Yale's combined PhD in English/African American Studies, and I see you applied to those schools. Congratulations on all your yesses! I'll probably apply to about 8-10 programs myself this round, and I'd be over the moon if half of those accepted me!

Firstly, huge congratulations on all of your acceptances and best of luck to those of you still waiting for news! Just a quick question about the magical, mystical "fit" element: in your SOP, is it wise to focus on a single academic doing research that floats your boat in a department, or should you maybe reference two or even three? It feels a little risky to hone in on one person alone, and in some cases I think I'd be thrilled to work with either of two profs who are doing closely connected work in my area...

Sorry, should've been clearer. I meant I was shocked by the level at Oregon in comparison to the freshmen I'd taught elsewhere. But the reasons why are, as you mention, pretty straight forward and common sensical. I think it's definitely a learning curve for TAs and instructors. Expectations need to be adjusted very quickly to avoid exasperation or, at worse, getting completely depressed by what you're confronted with. I've been teaching as an instructor for years now, and it's always a struggle / disheartening when you get group after group of real under-performers. I think it's best to be as prepared as possible for that, because it can really affect first-time teachers who feel like throwing their hands up in despair when they find they're teaching college students who really haven't developed writing skills past the 9th or 10th grade level. It can be very dispiriting to watch them struggle, to try to help them as best you can but to find, ultimately, that you have to let them go with improved but still not completely adequate skills. I encourage all first-time teachers to spend a little time before they begin teaching reflecting upon the huge disparity between what they are capable of and what their students will be capable of, as blakeblake mentions. Sounds really obvious but I don't think many new teachers do this. It's also a good idea to focus on what you can give them in a given quarter or semester, rather than focusing on everything they need that you won't possibly be able to cram into their heads. If, for example, there's one particular component of the course that can really help everyone, make sure they leave knowing that one thing inside out. It takes a little of the pressure (and potential guilt) off. Haha! Not in a mandatory freshman comp class you won't! HIGHLY unlikely! Okay, maybe one or two...

Do it if you're really interested in the conference itself and can comfortably afford both the time and the money it'll cost, otherwise personally I would pass. It's not that it doesn't look good - all the experience you can get looks good - but it seems a little out of the way, and once you're in your program all kinds of opportunities will likely present themselves, many of which you might be able to get some funding for. Plus, with all the great stuff you'll be doing in the future, a moderator credit probably won't make it onto your resume when it's time to send that bad boy out!

Yes, if you can afford it and could commit to study in order to raise points. While a 160 is respectable, I see you've got a few programs on your list in particular where it wouldn't hurt to do better (perhaps, even, you would need to do better to get into the grad school). I think it'd be a shame not to take it again if you can, especially because there's time and given your earlier score you would probably do really well if you spent time preparing. You can also choose to send your most recent score now, so if you know you've worked hard and preparatory tests have shown an improvement, you can send scores with confidence; they've done away with all that crazy averaging and what have you... Try to do some kind of prep for the subject test. There's no point in taking it "just to see" unless you're wealthy and have a spare four hours in which to fill with the sheer banality of a standardised test, the results of which mean virtually nothing in the real world situation of grad school (bitter much? oh, yes, I hate ETS with a passion. It's nothing more than a racket - rant over!). You either need it for apps or you don't, and if you do, you should try and find some way of ensuring you give your best performance so you don't have to either cut programs you've fallen in love with, apply to them feeling worried you didn't do everything you could, or take the monster again! It is too damn expensive and far too difficult to take totally unprepared, even if prep just means really getting to know the structure of the test itself.

LONG POST, Sorry! (but hopefully useful for some) For those of us researching PhD programs, it'd be so great if those accepted / already attending could give us the skinny on what teaching looks like in their programs. Aside from the stuff we can easily find out on our own (load / stipend / etc) which is also really appreciated if you want to add it , what's the reality look like? What kinds of pedagogical training is expected once you're in, and are any exceptions made to rules? Is the training overkill or do you think there should be more? What are the students like? What's the evaluation process like for teachers. How many lit classes vs. how much comp (sometimes this is surprisingly difficult to find out)? Some of these questions are more geared to those already attending, but as teaching is an important segment of what we'll be doing in most cases, it seems like any information on it would really help us narrow down our lists! No need to read further if you don't give a fig about UVa or U Oregon! My experience from UVa is probably outdated (2008-2010) and definitely a little unique (because I was an MA on a teaching fellowship), but their approach was relaxed and supportive, with a class in pedagogy, weekly staff meetings that weren't designed to check up on you, opportunities to TA literature, and the standard academic and prof writing class that you later use as a kind of basis for designing your own writing course based on a topic of your choosing. My load was 1:1 apart from my first semester of my second year where I taught two sections as a head TA. People preferred teaching lit over writing, but there wasn't a huge amount of complaining about the latter, probably because it was run by two really lovely, smart professors who cared about your progress as a teacher (one of whom sadly died). As I say, my experience wasn't the norm, but I loved it. Generalisation alert : UVa undergrads are on the whole a little spoilt and entitled, but I can say this for them: in both writing and lit classes they were smart and most importantly, motivated, and they generally responded to me as adults. In my opinion, this made them more of a pleasure to teach. Beware the grade grubbers: they all expect As, but it's less annoying when a good proportion of them work hard and end up deserving them! My experience at Oregon has been wildly different as an MFA. I taught a year-long 6-student advanced seminar for CRWR as an instructor and was thoroughly spoiled before becoming a comp instructor for the English department. They prepare you thoroughly with TWO graded pedagogy seminars (one is theoretical, one a little more practical) which for MFAs were only single credit (can't attest to Eng folks), a 10 or 4 week apprenticeship ( length dependent upon whether or not you have teaching experience), plus a four-day-long madatory conference before your first fall term of teaching begins. The seminars are a lot of busy-work, and unless you are actually interested in a career in comp/rhet the theory one is a lot of work period, and even if you know bupkiss about comp, completely unnecessary given the practicalities of the job. The deparment pushes the pedagogy of one chaired professor in the department who wrote a textbook almost universally hated by both students and most GTFs, hence the theory seminar. There is autonomy, but only to a degree (you don't design your own comp course entirely for the first three (unless you're a senior instructor and probably no longer actually in the program), you teach one of three based on a set choice of readers that you can mess about with syllabus-wise). The structure of the courses is in essay cycles where students submit, and then resubmit a revised version again. In one particular course, there are three cycles, and you're likely to have the max number of students at 26 - that makes 156 1200-1500 word essays in a ten week term. There are, of course, creative ways to deal with this but when you factor in other graded assignments, there's no escaping that currently, it's a grading intensive structure. While the student administration is very helpful, the admistration overall is a little uptight and a lot less trusting than I experienced at UVa (think clucking, sometimes pecking, hens); all the prep, above and beyond what is reasonable, is evidence of that. I should add I wouldn't mind any of this if I thought it genuinely benefitted the students and GTFs but I don't. I will say, though, that the administration is great about evaluating their teachers - once in the first year - which can be very helpful, and although I can't speak to this personally, it seems they'll really support you when it comes to a job search. That's where the stringency pays off. Generalisation Alert: I've had quite a few students who had below par SATs and were required to take additional tutored classes at the university. The overall standard of writing and level of student engagement shocked me at first. The comp classes are required, which makes them naturally challenging in terms of motivation and engagement, but thus far both myself and a number of my colleagues have remarked that the attitude and aptitude of students overall is hard to work with. It's sort of a "come prepared to spend a lot of time working on ways to engage them" situation, which can be frustrating when you have a lot of material to cover in a short time. I only have UVa and Oregon to compare but UGs at UVa came to my classes as undergrads (new to the work and ideas but generally aware of their responsibilities as college students) whereas Oregon students have come very much as high school students who need to be shown college is different. Finally, at Oregon I *think* you need to be an advanced PhD to teach any literature class, if you get the opportunity at all due to postdocs, etc. This is slightly different for concentrations in film because that is a much smaller cohort. Hope this ramble helps someone.